Editor’s note: The following comments were sent to the Sussex County Planning & Zoning Commission and Sussex County Council.
Some would tell me to focus on big things, not small matters. I volunteer to be a nit-picker because someone has to look into seemingly trivial issues.
First, why is Sussex County’s proposed wetland/buffer ordinance changing the maximum size of a minor subdivision from four to five and a major subdivision from “five or more” to “six or more”?
Does it matter? Yes.
Per Subdivision Code §99-7(c), the minor subdivisions can be approved by Planning & Zoning without public hearing or comments.
Why did this become part of the new wetland/buffer ordinance? They never discussed this seemingly unrelated change during the introduction or presentation of the ordinance.
Please explain the need for this proposed change or remove it.
Second, the proposed one-word change (replacing “and” with “in” after “design which is superior” on line 531 of the draft) in §115-25 Height, Area and Bulk requirements F(3)(a) assigns to the planning commission total flexibility in judging what qualifies as the “superior design.” That one word changes things and puts the final judgment with the Planning Commission.
Is this a change necessary to serve the general public?
Of course, I support wider buffer width with undisturbed wetlands and the removal of Section G.
Eul Lee
Lewes
